US District Judge Rosemary Collyer has dismissed Nasser al-Awlaki’s lawsuit against Obama Administration officials over the assassination of his son and grandson in US drone strikes in Yemen.
Collyer argued that it was “impermissible” for the courts to get involved in “operational combat decisions regarding the designation of targets,” though the US is not involved in combat in Yemen, where the killings took place, and the assassinations were rather planned months in advance, and publicized before they took place.
Collyer went on to insist that the Constitution grants sole decision-making on who lives and dies to the president, and that allowing lawsuits would “hinder their ability in the future to act decisively and without hesitation.”
Collyer’s ruling was materially identical to the Justice Department’s own demand for dismissal, which insisted courts have no say over the president’s ability to kill people abroad, citizen or not, and that it was essentially impossible for anyone to challenge the killings before they happen or after.
When will people realize that the courts are never going to be a means of holding the FedGov accountable for its crimes? From the standpoint of political philosophy, the idea of suing a murderous regime in its own courts is completely laughable, because it is so supremely naive. Rand Paul is likewise barking up that tree with his lawsuit against the NSA, although in his case naivety is replaced by a reluctance to do his constitutional duty as a Senator and demand the disestablishment of the NSA by moving to choke off its funding and revoke whatever legislation that grants it a license to exist.
Which means in a nutshell that we have a Fuehrer and not a President. Together with the recent SC decision not to limit contributions by individuals to political campaigns, we've further isolated the power structure from the people. The ruling class IS the law and there is only one way in which to fix this damnable corruption. One day I hope to see our political leadership in the defense dock in the proceedings of some publicly conducted peoples' court, their property and their arrogance utterly stripped away.
"…people's court…"
Many, many people will have to die before that occurs.
And many probably will but they are dying now slowly enough anyway. But just imagine the satisfaction in seeing a Pelosi, a McCain, or an Adelson frogmarched into a peoples' tribunal after having first been interrogated. The best part will be their tearfully blubbering out confessions as the prosecutor – someone of Vyshinsky's capabilities – holds them accountable for their misdeeds. Filth like these need to be held accountable.
Unfortunately they don't make prosecutors like that anymore – what we have now is a group who have all sold their souls to political masters – or they have designs on high political office themselves…like Christy (I have no knowledge of Christy's skills or reputation, good or bad, as a prosecutor.)
Collyer argued that it was “impermissible” for the courts to get involved in “operational combat decisions regarding the designation of targets,”
Can't imagine a better incentive for lying, murdering cowards to expand 'The Battlefield' to infinity.
It is a judgment documenting the stage af insanity in the modern world, That leaders decide, and the public engages only to acclaim whatever they do. It is an international "order" established by the foundation of the UN after WW2. So that judge are simply acting as he senses the play order to be. And certainly NOT the real population's wishes or interests, or any relevant facts. "Der Fuehrer" is NOT more charming, nor to say objectively connected to reality, when coming from a whole group of "Fuehrers".
Collyer argued that it was “impermissible” for the courts to get involved in “operational combat decisions regarding the designation of targets,”
I THOUGHT that the courts could "get involved" in ANYTHING. Isn't that why we HAVE courts for in the first freaking place???
Dementia is prevalent in the Fatherland. THE USA has PERFECTED the Fascist Ideal. Very impressive.
The religious fervor with which it has been conducted is truly masterful. It likely began within a nanosecond of the signing of the declaration of independence.
One need only consider the dedication, ferocity, the long term planning, the zealous adherence to the master plan, the complete abandon of anything resembling humanity or justice, to admire it's totality.
It is an awesome feat. Unmatched by any previous tyranny. Total and complete 'soft' fascism.
Not based on any superior intellect. Not based on any greater good. Simply an act of will, carried out over centuries, by people who are so evil that one is barely even capable of comprehending the magnitude of their evil.
It is almost complete. There is a SINGLE remedy: they must be exterminated.
Dementia is prevalent in the Fatherland. THE USA has PERFECTED the Fascist Ideal. Very impressive.
The religious fervor with which it has been conducted is truly masterful. It likely began within a nanosecond of the signing of the declaration of independence.
One need only consider the dedication, ferocity, the long term planning, the zealous adherence to the master plan, the complete abandon of anything resembling humanity or justice, to admire it's totality.
It is an awesome feat. Unmatched by any previous tyranny. Total and complete 'soft' fascism.
Not based on any superior intellect. Not based on any greater good. Simply an act of will, carried out over centuries, by people who are so evil that one is barely even capable of comprehending the magnitude of their evil.
It is almost complete. There is a SINGLE remedy: they must be exterminated.
"They must be exterminated".
That is my conclusion as well, but I am not aware of any attempts to bring that to fruition, none at all.
Strange isn't it? Americans don't know who their real enemies are, so focused on the "evil Muslims".
If the courts are not to involved in "combat decisions," then why is battlefield combatants captured in a foreign country is brought to the US for trial? I would argue that the courts are still making a "combat decision" based on evidence from the administration.
End of America
Does this not mean we are obligated to rehabilitate jurists like Roland Freisler of the People's Courts which were set up to function outside the German constitution? And once we have done that, do their legal decisions, like Judge Collyer's, not also become acceptable–
Like the secret FISA court? The precedent is set.
"…Constitution grants sole decision-making on who lives and dies to the president…"
Well, hell, and here I thought the Constitution provided protection to the citizens for that very same issue. I'd really like the Judge (Bush appointee, btw) to show exactly where in the Constitution it lays that kind of power at the feet of the President. The Constitution as written barely allocates to the President the power to break wind much less life or death.
And then the little tidbit about lawsuits hindering the President's ability in the future to act decisively and without hesitation thrown in for good measure, supporting Cheney's contention about private deliberations (and memos) between high government officials and their lawyers. In the unlikely event that some radical firebrand (far left or far right) should ever get elected on the promise to re-examine the decisions to invade Iraq and institutionalize torture is ever elected, the mythos of unaccountability by the Executive is expanded with Collyer's statement.
"…Constitution grants sole decision-making on who lives and dies to the president…"
Well, hell, and here I thought the Constitution provided protection to the citizens from that very grasp of power. I'd really like the Judge (Bush appointee, btw) to show exactly where in the Constitution it lays that kind of power at the feet of the President. The Constitution as written barely allocates to the President the power to break wind much less life or death.
And then the little tidbit about lawsuits hindering the President's ability in the future to act decisively and without hesitation thrown in for good measure, supporting Cheney's contention about private deliberations (and memos) between high government officials and their lawyers. In the unlikely event that some radical firebrand (far left or far right) should ever get elected on the promise to re-examine the decisions to invade Iraq and institutionalize torture is ever elected, the mythos of unaccountability by the Executive is expanded with Collyer's statement.
'The case was dismissed because the judge determined … the judiciary should not interfere in the areas of “warmaking, national security and foreign relations.”' (Kevin Gosztola, FDL article at AW.C today)
So according to this Judge, as long as the Executive Dept. declares a case has "national security implications" (and almost anything can be said to do so) the Judiciary can't interfere. If this Judge's opinion is correct, there is no such thing in US law as a "war crime" because the Judiciary doesn't have jurisdiction over such Executive Dept. decisions before, during, or after the fact. If this Judge's opinion is correct, there is very little need to have a Judiciary except for the most trivial matters.
This is just the latest in a long line of court decisions that clearly demonstrate the "ruling" class has thrown out the rulebook, and now rules by fiat (by will). That is the very definition of tyranny.